\section{Analysing from technological perspective}
    
In this section, the subject matter is analysed based on technical aspects and related to various theoretical frameworks such as Innovation. Problem definition and focus presented on the problem area were used as a guide for this analysis. \bigskip
\noindent First we briefly defined what innovation is and the attributes that affect the rate of adoption of an innovation. The next step is that we used the mentioned factors of innovation and analysed ICN as an innovation technology, and how it can be adopted based on the mentioned factors. \bigskip

\subsection{ICN as Innovation}
As written on the theory chapter, Innovation came with different kinds and definitions, Charac-teristics, and its process were also presented. \bigskip

\noindent Based on the Schumpeters definition for Innovation, ICN can be considered as a new method. It is scientifically a new system, and with great potential that will serve its purpose. Technically ICN methods can be an overlay to the existing Internet architecture as mentioned on the interview by Dave Oran (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 22:38). \bigskip

\noindent ICN introduced new technical aspects and methods to improve and develop a new Internet par-adigm, where content is the core. The technical aspects as discussed here were a basis that de-fines Information-Centric Network as an Innovation.

\subsection{ICN as a Radical or Incremental Innovation}
ICN infrastructure is named-centric, and that is totally different from the current host-centric Internet architecture, which according to Schumpeter's theory is an Innovation. \bigskip

\noindent It is Radical Innovation because \textit{``Information-centric networks (ICNs) introduce a radical change in Internet communications. ICNs emphasize information access regardless of location through a new data-based approach, allowing networks to actively deliver content. ICNs employ innova-tive concepts, such as named content, name-based routing, security mechanisms applied direct-ly to content and in-network content caching.''} \citep[p. 13]{BRITO} \bigskip

\noindent ICN can also be considered as incremental Innovation because it is in the development face. It can be employed as an overlay over the existing IP Link layer as this is mentioned by Dave Oran (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 22:38) and Dirk Trossen (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen} 06:15).

\subsection{Adoption of Innovation}
It is essential to identify the different attributes of innovation on its way to adoption and determine if ICN conforms to these attributes on a technical manner. As mentioned in the theory chapter, \ref{sec:innovation}, \textit{``Adoption of innovation also forms an important part of socio-technical regime. Rogers also define different attributes that determine the rate of adoption of innova-tion.''} \citep[p. 35]{ROGERS}

\subsubsection{Relative advantage}
\begin{quote}
\textit{``Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage may be measured in economic terms, but social-prestige factors, convenience, and satisfaction are also often important components. It does not matter so much whether an innovation has a great deal of ``objective'' advantage. What does matter is whether an individual perceives the innovation as advantageous. The greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate of adoption is going to be.''} \citep[p. 5]{ROGERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent Technical advantages of ICN over the current Internet architecture are discussed throughout this report. But these advantages then can be considered as advantages if they will be on the deployment stage and tested on the social context, as mentioned by Dave Oran (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 16:00), when he clearly stated that \textit{``it is not clear yet if it is an advantage. That is why it is still research.''}  On the other side the awareness of this proposed advantages is growing in numbers every time different organizations, academics, researchers, and the scientific community is growing as well. 

\subsubsection{Compatibility}
\begin{quote}
\textit{``Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An idea that is not compatible with the prevalent values and norms of a social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible. The adoption of an incompatible innovation often requires the prior adoption of a new value system.''} \citep[p. 5]{ROGERS}
\end{quote} 

Is ICN perceived to be consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters? If it is, then it can be adopted rapidly as what Roger's mentioned from the above context. Some of the technical incompatibilities of the existing internet architecture, \textit{``[w]e see a number of issues that affect users arising from this incompatibility between models.''} \citep[p. 1]{VAN}

\textit{``}
\begin{description}

\item[Availability] \textit{Fast, reliable content access requires awkward, pre-planned, application-specific mechanisms like CDNs and P2P networks, and/or imposes excessive bandwidth costs.}

\item[Security] \textit{Trust in content is easily misplaced, relying on untrustworthy location and connec- tion information.}

\item[Location-dependence] \textit{Mapping content to host locations complicates configuration as well as implementation of network services.}

\end{description}
\textit{``} \citep[p. 1]{VAN} \bigskip

\noindent The aim of ICN is to improve the content delivery to the user and possibly solve some of the problems experienced and identified in the current Internet. ICN is still on a research stage, if it surpasses the above-mentioned incompatibilities of the current models then it can be adopted rapidly. Various research projects of ICN are working extensively, and continuously developing its system.

\subsubsection{Complexity}
\begin{quote}
\textit{``Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. Some innovations are readily understood by most members of a social system; others are more complicated and will be adopted more slowly.''} \citep[p. 5]{ROGERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent The complexity of ICN over its technicalities relies on the experts and researchers that are developing the system. Evidently the technicalities presented by different research projects are not complex because they are structured and supported by expert's papers on this field as dis- cussed in this chapter.

\begin{quote}
\textit{``Content dissemination is the heart of the ICN paradigm and, therefore, we would expect that they are a ``natural fit'' for showcasing the superiority of ICN over traditional client/server TCP /IP based systems.''} \footnote{url: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-scenarios-01\#section-2}
\end{quote}

\noindent Its main goal is to further enhance the performance, reliability, and security of the Internet architecture. Therefore it is important that it will be put into practice and give the members of the social system, such as the users, content providers, and other stakeholders the basic understanding of the benefits and advantages of the system.

\subsubsection{Trialability}
\begin{quote} 
\textit {``Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that are not divisible.''} \citep[p. 5]{ROGERS}

\end{quote}

\noindent Information-Centric Networking implementations are being tested on different experimental testbeds, such as NDN testbed in USA. \footnote{url: http://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/}

\begin{quote}
\textit{``Assessment of proposed solutions require appropriate experimental testbeds. Assessment of proposed solutions require appropriate experimental testbeds. In this context OpenFlow, which has been developed to enable the deployment of novel networking solutions in the actual net- work infrastructure, represents a valuable tool. Accordingly, we are currently implementing an ICN solution - called CONET - for OpenFlow networks. The solution will be deployed in two testbeds, part of larger experimental OpenFlow facility distributed across Europe realized by the EU funded OFELIA project. In particular one testbed will be based on the Open vSwitch platform while the other will be deployed on NetFPGA platforms.''} \footnote{url:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=\&arnumber=6294210\&isnumber=\-6294166\&url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org\%2Fstamp\%2Fstamp.\-jsp\%3Ftp\%3D\%26arnumber\%3D6294210\%26isnumber\%3D6294166}
\end{quote}

\noindent The above reference clearly demonstrates that ICN is undergone to a process of testing, there- fore there is a possibility to it to be adopted more quickly.

\subsubsection{Observability}
\textit {``Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt. Such visibility stimulates peer discussion of a new idea, as friends and neighbors of an adopter ask him or her for innovation-evaluation information about it.''} \citep[p. 6]{ROGERS}

\noindent The technological awareness of the ICN network architecture grows exponentially especially in the research community. If the experimentation in the testbeds being conducted will be more likely to continue, more research and academic communities will participate, and then the adoption process will be easier.

\subsection{Transition and Technical barriers}
We mention here some of the technical issues that is based on the interviews we have conduct- ed with three experts. We can argue though that these technical problems can be the barriers for the transition from the traditional Internet architecture to ICN. \bigskip

\noindent In the interview with Dave Oran, we have asked him about the possibility of deploying ICN in the real life, and what the factors are that can be barriers of doing so, he said: \textit{``if this stuff works really really well, what will happen is that current CDN overlay network will either evolve or be replaced by an ICN style overlay network and IP will still be underneath it.''} (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 22:38) Dirk Trossen in this issue was more concerned about the business model that will be used for ICN: \textit{``Our testbeds that we are having, runs over the standard Internet, so it runs as an overlay. [...] IP is a perfect link layer. There's nothing wrong with overlaying it. I think what's more interesting is: how do you migrate from a business model perspective?''} (Appendix \ref{app:dirktrossen}: 06:15) \bigskip

\noindent In relation to the deployment question, Dave Oran mentioned also that yet there is no guaranty that ICN works efficiently, he said: \textit{``that the problem today is that we are not sure that the stuff works. Even if it does work we don't have a good evaluation framework or a way of deciding if something is better.''} (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 24:54) And concerning caching performance in ICN, he mentioned a test case, where it failed, which also can be a barrier for deploying ICN: \textit{``There is a paper published at Sitcoms just a few months ago which did a very nice job of computing a theoretically founded upper bound of how much better you do content-caching with an ICN architecture over a conventional IP-based CDN architecture. And that upper-band is actually quite small. Certainly small enough that you would never shift the current approach to caching to an ICN approach based on caching performance.''} (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 24:54) \bigskip

\noindent In relation to the deployment question, Dave Oran mentioned also that yet there is no guaranty that ICN works efficiently, he said: \textit{``that the problem today is that we are not sure that the stuff works. Even if it does work we don't have a good evaluation framework or a way of deciding if something is better.''} (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran}: 24:54) And concerning caching performance in ICN, he mentioned a test case, where it failed, which also can be a barrier for deploying ICN: \textit{``There is a paper published at Sitcoms just a few months ago which did a very nice job of computing a theoretically founded upper bound of how much better you do content-caching with an ICN architecture over a conventional IP-based CDN architecture. And that upper-band is actually quite small. Certainly small enough that you would never shift the current approach to caching to an ICN approach based on caching performance.''} (Appendix \ref{app:daveoran} 24:54)


